Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. STENHOLM. I will be happy to answer the gentleman's question. For of the last year and a half all we have talked about is CBO scoring, CBO scoring, CBO scoring. The President finally submitted a budget that was CBO-scored and balanced, but that did not suit the gentleman, did not suit me.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to take time today to put in a plug for enactment of real welfare reform, something that the House and Senate can and will vote for and something the President will sign. Let us be totally honest today, Mr. Speaker. This debate on the Wisconsin waiver is not about welfare reform, it is about scoring partisan points in an election year. We all know this is a terrible process, to be considering the Wisconsin proposal. It is not unreasonable to expect the Wisconsin plan to be subject to public comments and undergo review to determine whether it meets the goals it sets forth, whether it will increase Federal spending, which I cannot believe my chairman was speaking a moment ago without recognizing the potential of doing damage to the budget. Regardless of whether we are talking about welfare proposals or health care grants or education plans or any other function of the Federal Government, I must say that circumventing the processes which have served both Democrat and Republican administrations, allowing time for public comment and review, is not a wise precedent. The State of Texas had to undergo this process in order to implement a welfare reform proposal very similar to the Wisconsin plan. While it was frustrating at times for those of us who supported the Texas waiver to go through the process, we did not ask for special treatment such as we are being asked to give Wisconsin today. The Texas plan was approved because it was able to stand up to the scrutiny and questions and is now being implemented. I support the Kleczka-Obey amendment because it requires that the Wisconsin plan undergo the same reasonable scrutiny and the same valid questions to be asked that Texas did. Instead of wasting our time with political games on waiver for one State, we should be working on enacting a bipartisan welfare reform bill for the entire Nation. I agree that we should not be micromanaging the welfare programs of Wisconsin or any other State. There is an agreement on a bipartisan welfare reform proposal that can become law, that would allow Texas, Wisconsin, and all of the other 48 States to pursue innovative welfare reform proposals to move welfare recipients to work. It is called the Tanner-Castle Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act. The Tanner-Castle bill is an effort to put an end to the partisanship and the speech-making and all the rhetoric on this floor, and take constructive action on welfare reform. The Tanner-Castle bill gives States the flexibility to implement welfare reform, initiatives like the Wisconsin plan. There is so much about the Wisconsin plan that I like. It is just like the Texas plan. The problem is, we do not know what is the rest of the story. What else is in this 600 pages? Why not subject it to a reasonable amount of scrutiny? The more important thing for today's debate is to understand this is pure political partisanship. I hope that within the next 2 weeks when the welfare reform bill comes to the floor that we will sincerely have the discussion and the debate on asking and answering the questions, so Wisconsin or any other State does not have to come to the Federal Government for a request for waivers. We are that close to doing it, but believe me, Mr. Speaker, this bill today moves us in the opposite direction. I support the amendment offered by the gentlemen from Wisconsin, Mr. Kleczka and Mr. Obey.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 181, which has been introduced by my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Emerson. I applaud the actions of my colleagues in this effort and am pleased to join them in bringing the bill to the House floor this afternoon. I would also like to note that the Clinton administration has been working on a similar effort to make Government-owned feed grain stocks available to hard-pressed livestock producers. I'm certain that Secretary Glickman will welcome the support shown by this concurrent resolution to continue this process. There is no doubt that there is a need to alleviate the stress facing producers in many parts of this country due to the severe drought in the southern Plains and flooding and excessive rainfall in the northern Plains and eastern corn belt. These natural disasters come at a time when grain stocks are at their lowest levels in decades causing record market prices and cattle producers are receiving even less for their animals than during the Great Depression based on inflation-adjusted dollars. The release of this grain would be in addition to the actions already taken by the Clinton administration to help alleviate the stress in the livestock and crop sectors. These actions include release of conservation reserve program acres for haying and grazing, extension of noninsured crop disaster assistance program coverage, extension of the livestock feed program, the release of additional funds for emergency loans, advance purchases of beef for the school lunch program, and export credit guarantees for meat. In my own State of Texas we are facing devastation in the livestock and crop sectors in the range of $6.5 billion and the summer has just begun. Sixty-two percent of the rangeland in Texas is rated as being in poor to very poor condition and producers are facing $374 million in added feed costs for beef cows alone due to the deterioration of range and pasture lands. Dairy producers in Texas are facing a possible doubling of their normal feed costs due to the increases in the cost of feed and hay they depend on for daily milk production. Similar statistics are available from other States: State agricultural officials in Oklahoma have indicated the possibility of 5,000 to 10,000 producers going out of business in that State. Kansas is facing their worst wheat crop since the Depression with the 180 million bushel harvest--less than half the normal. There is no opposition to the bill that I am aware of and this should have very little effect on the normal movement of grain because it will probably be distributed directly to producers outside the normal channels of grain merchandising. I would encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. The livestock sector in our country contributes billions of dollars to our economy and if we do not take actions to help stem the liquidation of herds now, we will pay the price later for rebuilding that infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker. I rise to express my deep concern regarding the proposed merger between the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads which is under consideration by the Surface Transportation Board. If approved, this merger would be the largest rail merger in the history of the United States. It will result in only two railroads controlling the entire western half of the Nation. This massive consolidation of rail transportation could hurt competition in the rail industry, and ultimately, hurt farmers, ranchers, and shippers in the agriculture industry. It is no secret that rail service is critical to the economic well- being of this Nation's agricultural and rural economies. Nearly half of all grain produced in the United States moves to market by rail. In fact, in 1995, grain, grain mill products, and other farm products accounted for more than 2.14 million rail loadings. The very survival of farmers and ranchers depends on their ability to ship commodities at a competitive price and in a timely fashion. Access to reliable, cost-effective rail transportation is the only way they can remain competitive in markets here and overseas. With this proposed merger, they may not have that critical access. With this merger, competition for rail transportation of agricultural products will be eliminated in some areas. With reduced competitive transportation options, agricultural shippers could be faced with higher rates and prices for rail services. Farmers and local shippers in many rural areas will become captive customers, totally dependent on only one carrier to supply grain cars and ship to distant markets. The proposed merger seems to be on a dangerous fast track. As the Surface Transportation Board considers this merger, we must urge them to consider all alternatives to monopoly and duoploy.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown substitute, and I want to take a moment to say something about it. It is the right thing to do. What I mean by that is that the Federal Government is fulfilling its proper role when it encourages technological research and development. It is fulfilling its proper role when it encourages us to look beyond our atmosphere for the answers to the questions we face. Most of us can agree that the very nature of the Federal Government is changing. The functions that the Government has had throughout our lifetimes are changing--this is as it should be. The Federal Government needs to be much smaller and more responsive to the American people. And we are beginning to move in that direction. For example, NASA should concentrate on reducing costs and encouraging greater involvement by the private sector. In conversations I have had with Administrator Goldin, I know that he is eager to continue the agency's trends in this direction. But I believe fundamentally that the United States should maintain its position as the leader in science and space research. Two weeks ago in this room we met to debate the 1997 budget resolution. The Blue Dogs submitted their budget plan which would have set us on a path to achieve a balanced budget by 2002. It would have forced all of us to tighten our belts a notch or two and get our fiscal house in order. In fact, our plan borrowed $137 billion less than the majority version. Unfortunately our budget plan was defeated. But Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget, which garnered significant bipartisan support, specifically endorsed the funding levels for science and technology contained in this substitute. We did this because we believed that America must continue to be a leader. H.R. 3322 is a step away from the cutting edge. That is not a direction I want to go. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that I do not endorse increased spending lightly. We have to think about the return on our investments. Keeping these programs properly funded is an investment we can count on. I urge my colleagues to support the Brown substitute.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the Congress stands poised to vote on a bill to repeal the 4.3 cents-per-gallon gasoline tax increase which was included in the 1993 deficit reduction bill. What we actually have here is the Election Year Seven Month Temporary 4.3 Cents Tax Repeal Bill, and it is a textbook example of poor public policy being driven by election year politics. Let me say for the record that my opposition to this gasoline tax increase was one of several reasons I voted against the 1993 budget on final passage. But here we are, 3 years later, still racking up annual budget deficits to pass on to our children and grandchildren, and we are nitpicking about a 7-month break from paying this 4.3-cent tax. Last year, the House and Senate leadership included language to prohibit tax cuts until the Congressional Budget Office certified that Congress has sufficiently reduced spending to pay for tax cuts and balance the budget. Unfortunately, that language was removed from the budget just approved by the House. It appears Congress still hasn't learned the lessons of the early 1980's, when we passed the popular tax cuts before the harder spending cuts, and ended up adding $4 trillion to the deficit. Before we cut any taxes, we should set aside partisan differences and work out an agreement to achieve the $700 billion of spending cuts needed to being the budget into balance. The simple fact is that, until we balance the budget, any tax cut is really done with borrowed money. I cannot justify putting more debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren though a temporary tax cut designed to gain short term political gain. I was encouraged by the bipartisanship that was evident in the most recent vote on the Coalition budget. But instead of working toward a balanced budget plan, the Majority leadership has squandered a historic opportunity to set aside partisan differences that could result in result in real deficit reduction in the overall context of the budget. I find it interesting that some of the strongest advocates of the 7- months temporary gas tax repeal are usually such vocal opponents of intervention in the marketplace. When it comes to agriculture policy, many of my colleagues are only too willing to take away the price supports and subsidies that have helped our own producers compete against our heavily subsidized trading partners. They say we should let the market place work, but when gasoline prices temporarily increase 21 cents over a 4-month period, all of a sudden it is time for the Federal Government to come in and save the day--at least for 7 months. There is no mystery about the market forces that increased gasoline prices. The coldest winter in years drove up demand, which production failed to meet. The high demand for heating oil delayed gasoline production. Market speculation about Iraqi oil caused uncertainties within the marketplace. The bottom line is this: the 4.3-cent gasoline tax enacted 3 years ago did not increase pump prices this year; a reduction in this tax will not necessarily be passed on to the consumer; and reducing the gas tax is not the solution to current market conditions, or the budget deficit. In fact, the majority's short-sighted decision to terminate Federal support of fossil fuels research and development will leave us even more vulnerable to future disruptions in the energy market. There is no question the U.S. Tax Code needs reform to bring about tax relief and incentives to invest in our country's future. But let the American consumer be forewarned; the 4.3-cent gasoline tax repeal, as supported by the majority and the President, will last through December 31, 1996, less than 2 months after the November election. On January 1, 1997, all the rhetoric heard about tax relief will be worth just about as much as the noisemakers used to bring in the New Year.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. At times I am asked, ``What's the hardest part of being a Congressman?'' I could easily talk about the grueling schedule or the complexity of legislation or the fact that we live in glass houses--or maybe the answer for many of us has to do with how hard it is to be missing in action from our families so much of the time. But one of the toughest things I grapple with on days like today is determining when something is good enough to support as ``moving the mark forward'' and when it just doesn't quite pass muster. I refuse to be part of the mentality so prevalent these days that claims compromise is a dirty word. Working things out, finding a middle ground--that's part of the life blood of a Democratic legislative body. But I also know the danger of wink-and-nod acquiescence to inferior agreements crafted too much for political expediency and not enough in honest confrontation of difficult problems--problems like the deficit. I sincerely praise both the President and the Republicans for promoting specific and legitimate balanced budgets this year. I am proud as a Democrat to note that, with one exception, this is the first time since the last Democratic President that, the House has voted on a Presidential budget scored as being in balance by the Congressional Budget Office. Just as the majority has moved toward the coalition budget by moderating many of their savings, the President has moved toward the coalition budget by tackling some of the tough choices necessary to reach balance. While more movement from both sides is necessary, the fact that each has come toward the coalition's numbers in the center gives me some hope we still can seal a balanced budget agreement. But in the final analysis today, I think both the President's and the majority's budgets have done too much winking and nodding when it comes to deficit reduction. Republicans want too much to raid my grandson's pockets to pay for today's tax cuts. Having lived through the failed promises of the 1980's tax cuts, I won't walk down that path again. Likewise, the President wants to dip into my grandson's pockets to pay for grandpa's Social Security and Medicare. Having watched the uncontrolled ballooning of those programs in the early 1990's, I won't follow that path either. President Clinton, and Chairman Kasich both deserve recognition for heightening the debate on balancing the budget. But both proposals fall short when measured on the deficit reduction yardstick. I will oppose both, having just supported the only obvious compromise and the plan most dedicated to deficit reduction, the coalition budget. Our substitute postponed tax cuts until the budget is balanced, provided a steady deficit reduction glide path, and has less total debt than any of the other options before us. It also avoided unlikely off-triggers on taxes and other questionable budget devises found in both of the other budgets. Americans are asking for bipartisanship, for honesty, integrity, and responsibility, and for constructive solutions. It's time to respond to those demands.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the coalition budget, and think it would be helpful if all of us lowered the tones of our voices and stuck a little bit more to the facts before us. The coalition budget differs from the majority budget in that we do not borrow $137 billion in order to grant all of us who need it a tax cut. The chart to my right shows the difference. The orange and the yellow lines are the difference between the majority's views of what the deficit ought to look like in 2002, the White House opinion of what it ought to be, and what the coalition believes that it ought to be. I for one accept, and I believe I speak for every single Member that supports the coalition budget on both sides of the aisle, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] that said we should stop talking about cutting, in this case the accusation from a few of the extremists on this side of the aisle that said we are cutting Social Security. We ought not to be saying that because that is not true, and we know it, and the two freshman Members that made that statement know better. Now the end of that. I commend my colleagues on this side for saying that and helping set the record straight. No one is proposing cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. But what we are talking about doing, and there are differences of opinion, and members of the coalition, myself in particular, have major differences with the majority and how they choose to adjust Medicare and Medicaid. But we are getting very close on welfare reform, and the beautiful speech we heard a moment ago, we are there, folks, we are there. Why we keep talking about that, I do not know. But I have to say, and I will be happy to yield at any time to anyone on this side that challenges anything that I am saying in the few seconds I have got remaining, because representing a rural area, I object strenuously to cutting 56 percent of the remaining discretionary spending for agriculture in rural America. That is not the farm program. We took care of that. Fifty-six percent. The gentleman and the party now that suggest that we ought to eliminate 100 percent of the research on fossil fuels, at a time we are complaining about the price of gasoline, I say makes no sense whatsoever. So I differ with your policies in that regard, and let us debate those policies on the floor. But let us quit making accusations. There is bipartisan support for education, there is bipartisan support for meaningful health care. What we suggest in the coalition budget is that we ought to be honest going into it and say if we are going to be for it, speak for it, we ought to budget for it, not come on the floor of the House and make some of the speeches that we have heard here today. That is not helpful. But I want to say, in fairness and in closing, I appreciate the tenor of most of the debate that has come from this side today. It is helpful. And I appreciate my colleagues on our side for supporting this budget, and I urge its passage. It could be the most positive step forward for this Congress in dealing with the very real problems that both sides say that we need to address.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask the gentleman another question. I have heard referenced today that in the tax cut proposal by my friends on the other side, that they are making provision for a $500-per-child tax credit. Is it possible, for $122 billion, to get a $500 tax credit?

Mr. STENHOLM. The resolution that is before us contains a net tax cut of $122 billion. At the same time information put out by the majority indicates they can pay for a permanent repeal of the gas tax, a cut in the capital gains, which I happen to support, estate tax relief, small business expensing, AMT relief, expansion of IRA's and extension of expiring tax credits. By my math, that is more than $122 billion.

Mr. STENHOLM. What would happen to the deficit numbers in the Republican budget if it included a tax cut large enough to pay for the child tax credit in every year?

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. A moment ago I spoke about agriculture and rural health and was challenged by the chairman of the committee, whom I deeply respect, and I would just say that we will continue that discussion any time, any place, regarding the facts of agriculture. But now I wish to speak to the debt and the deficit. I have seen the charts, I have seen the kids, and I have seen the accusations about this side of the aisle. But the budget that I support with the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and others on this side, we propose to borrow $137 billion less so that those same children do not have to pay interest on that debt. I do not understand why it makes good sense to borrow $137 billion to give a tax cut. That is all we are saying. Let us confine ourselves to the spending cuts. I want to ask the gentleman from Utah a question. Last year the budget resolution contained a provision preventing Congress from considering a tax cut until CBO certified that we had found the spending cuts to balance the budget first. Is that language in the resolution that the Committee on the Budget reported last week?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, there are two budgets; no, there are four budgets being considered tomorrow. The one that I support borrows $137 billion less than the majority budget. I listened to a lot of speeches today, and I do not understand how anyone can propose that borrowing $137 billion more is going to make good economic sense. We are talking about spending cuts. I hope my colleagues from rural America take a good hard look at our colleagues' budget. Cutting 46 percent more out of the agriculture discretionary function over the next 6 years does not make good economic sense by anybody's standards. Cutting 13 percent from research extension this year, 1997, does not make good sense. Whoever proposed that, I do not understand how they could possibly come up with that. The idea that there is that much more overhead down at USDA completely ignores the fact that we have spent the last 3 years reorganizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have cut $4.2 billion from that overhead. Now to come in and say we are going to take another $695 million because somebody keeps saying there is unnecessary bureaucratic overhead downtown, they are not looking at what has already been done over the last 3 years in the current administration, and they are truly going to do irreparable harm to agriculture, rural health. Eliminating the office of rural health in the block grant program that has allowed rural hospitals who have been struggling to just keep their doors open, the success of that program, to suggest that is going to be eliminated does not make sense. So, a lot of cuts. Yes, we need to cut; yes, we need to make decisions along these lines. But I would say take a good hard look at rural health, and that also includes urban health because what I say about rural health applies exactly the same way to the inner cities, and there are being many decisions made in this budget in the name of cutting the bureaucracy that are going to have the opposite effect. They are going to have a devastating effect on the food supply of this Nation some day. Mr. Chairman, as Representative for the very rural 17th District of Texas, as a founding member and former cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and as a 16-year veteran on the House Agriculture Committee, I find the degree to which this budget resolution assaults rural America truly stunning and enormously disturbing. In the past, rural Members, which of course can be found in both parties, have always managed to put aside partisanship in rural issues for one fundamental reason: An overriding worry about the potential loss of access to quality health care, loss of business, and ultimately, loss of economic viability in rural areas. The programs and offices which this budget targets for elimination in the health function are the very programs and offices originated by the bipartisan Rural Health Care Coalition. I realize that constituents of urban Members do not worry about whether there is going to be a doctor to deliver their babies, an emergency room to treat the tractor accidents, a nurse to treat daily illnesses. But these are things my constituents do worry about. The programs targeted by this budget certainly do not respond to all of those needs by themselves but the programs and their coordination play a vital role at the edges. The assault on agriculture is even more remarkable, with total agricultural discretionary spending cut a staggering 46 percent from 1997 to 2002. I understand Republicans think that this nearly 50 percent reduction will come from overhead, which I find particularly interesting since the Agriculture Department has just completed a major reorganization and downsizing. Since most of those cuts are unspecified, it's hard to know whether they will be taken from the hide of research and extension programs, conservation programs, or nutrition and safety programs. What is clear, however, is that with the Ag discretionary budget virtually cut in half, the impact will be felt in each and every function of the USDA. And that means the impact will be felt in each and every rural community. I find it hard to believe that my many friends across the aisle who serve with me on the Agriculture Committee or on the Rural Health Care Coalition have focused on the aspect of the majority's budget. I have little doubt, though, that as these numbers are implemented into policies and as constituents across the country notify their Representatives of their concerns, my friends will become as alarmed about the impact of this budget on the future of rural America as I am today. Mr. Chairman, for this and other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget and a ``yea'' vote for the coalition substitute which approaches a balanced budget in a far more humane and reasonable manner.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor of the three bills that make up the comprehensive Food and Drug Administration [FDA] reform being considered in the House. Most Americans believe that the FDA approval process for new drugs, medical devices, and foods should be streamlined to ensure that citizens have access to life-saving products. Many believe, however, that this streamlining effort also must preserve the public's confidence in the agency's mission of protecting the health and safety of consumers. I agree with both concerns and believe that both goals can be met through commonsense legislation. While I have some concerns about these FDA reform bills, I strongly agree with the underlying principle that there are constructive reforms of FDA that should be enacted. I am cosponsoring these bills because I believe they are a step in the right direction. At the same time, I believe it is critical that the hearing process function as it should, providing an opportunity for all interested parties to air their concerns and assisting Congress in making changes in the legislation as appropriate. Some of the people who have approached me about FDA reform have described it as a ``work in progress.'' Therefore, I look forward to seeing what progress can be made to address some of the concerns I have heard regarding safety. In particular, I know that breast implant recipients, understandably, have some concerns along these lines. I also have had expressed to me an uncertainty about moving too quickly to privatization, as well as concerns expressed from the State level about changes in the State and Federal relationship. I am convinced that a middle ground can be reached to reduce bureaucracy and delay, while also protecting the public health and safety. I believe that, while not perfect, these three bills set us off down that path toward appropriate FDA reform.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 842. I refer to the bill by number rather than name because I feel this legislation promotes anything but truth in budgeting, at least if that budgeting is supposed to be aimed in the direction of balance. In fact, this bill would reduce controls on Federal spending, the exact opposite of what we should be doing as we work toward a balanced budget. Next week the Budget Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, is scheduled to begin the process of putting together the budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. This process will require many tough choices as priorities are set among worthy programs. All programs will be required to make sacrifices in the effort to achieve a balanced budget by 2002. My guess is that not a single program will receive the full amount of funding that its advocates would like. But essentially all programs will be together in the same boat, competing for priority status as we seek to determine how best to allocate the revenues coming into the U.S. Treasury. This bill is an effort to circumvent this process for one segment of the budget. The debate today is really about whether the transportation trust funds should be exempted from the priority-setting process that tests every other program. A vote for this bill says that spending on transportation programs automatically should receive a higher priority than every other program of the Federal Government. We have heard good augments today about the value of investing in our national infrastructure. I agree with much of what was said but I disagree with the venue. This debate should be heard in the midst of augments about the value of every other program, not standing alone without programmatic competition for numerous hours on the House floor. We're talking about much more than the simple bookkeeping activity of moving the trust funds onto a different side of the ledger. The real impact of the bill is in removing trust funds from the statutory budget enforcement mechanisms and, to a lesser extent, the congressional budget process. Currently, spending from the trust funds is subject to the discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go rules. The discretionary caps have been quite successful in controlling discretionary spending and have played a major role in the significant deficit reduction we've witnessed in the past 4 years. In my opinion, we should be expanding the spending caps to cover all programs, not reducing the number of programs subject to the caps as this bill seeks to do for transportation spending. Spending form the trust funds would have greater protection than any other spending program. Even Social Security spending is subject to pay-as-you-go rules. During the debate Monday evening regarding the tax limitation constitutional amendment, there was a lot of rhetoric about the need to control Federal spending. I cannot understand how any Member who voted to amend the Constitution on Monday evening, or for that matter any Member who claims to care about deficit reduction, can vote for a bill that will make it much easier for Congress to increase spending without accountability. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office stated that if trust fund spending was exempted from budgetary controls ``transportation spending could increase significantly.'' The General Accounting Office made a similar point: ``Whatever the immediate effect on the deficit, exempting one type of spending from the Budget Enforcement Act makes it likely that such spending will increase over time.'' Similarly, the reserved Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that taking trust funds off- budget ``could weaken the ability of the Congress to prioritize and control spending * * * [and] could engender cynicism in financial markets and the public at large about the commitment and ability of government to control Federal spending.'' This year, much ado has been made about differences in scoring between the CBO and the OMB, but the two are in agreement about this issue. They both have estimated that this bill would allow transportation spending to increase by $20 billion above an inflated baseline and $40 billion above 1995 levels over the next 5 years. I know that the drafters of this legislation claim that the bill is deficit neutral but they are not the referees who score Federal spending; CBO and OMB are the two entities we count on to do that job. At a time when programs for education, health, senior citizens, youth jobs, scientific research and so many other important programs are being cut or given increases well below inflation, I have a hard time justifying a $40 billion increase straight out of the gate for transportation spending. Finally, granting special status to the trust funds will undermine the principle of shared discipline which is so critical to building consensus for reaching a balanced budget. Supporters of all other Federal programs, understandably, will be far less willing to accept cutbacks in their own programs if transportation, or any other specially anointed program, is exempt from sharing the burden. The credibility of the process will be severely undermined by the contrast of transportation spending receiving a full inflation increase plus as much as $20 billion beyond inflationary increases while other programs losing in actual dollar terms. H.R. 842 also will make it more difficult to implement a deficit enforcement mechanism along the lines of the one included in the Coalition budget by exempting trust fund spending from sequestration. One of the weaknesses that led to the failure of Gramm-Rudman was that it exempted a large number of programs from sequestration, thereby reducing the number of people who have a stake in reducing the deficit. Taking the trust funds off budget would mean that the transportation industry would not have a stake in ensuring that a balanced budget plan works, because they would not be affected by its failure. If you are serious about controlling Government spending, if you believe in the importance of a fair budget process, if there are other Federal programs that you rank at least of equal importance with transportation programs, then vote against this bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. STENHOLM. I certainly am, in its current form. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 159, and I want to spend a little time examining closely what exactly we are voting on and what we are not. On the floor earlier today a blanket statement was made that if you are opposed to this amendment, there is only one reasonable explanation: it is because you are a big spender. I find it interesting, then, that the National Taxpayer's Union vote tally scores me based on my actual votes on appropriation and reconciliation bills as a Member who is a spending cutter. I also find it significant that the Concord Coalition, one of the most thoughtful, respected, and credible watchdogs of deficit spending, is opposed to this amendment. They wrote, ``Enactment of this constitutional amendment would be detrimental to the budget process. In considering how to balance the Federal budget and keep it balanced over the long term, all options for reducing spending or raising revenues must be on the table. No area of the budget, on either the spending or the revenue side, should receive preferential treatment such as requiring supermajorities.'' The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes, ``The Coalition budget represented the most serious of all deficit reduction plans developed in the last year. It contained more deficit reduction over the next 7 years than any other plan. Under the proposed constitutional amendment, the coalition budget would be unconstitutional unless it received a two-thirds vote.'' The coalition budget would have balanced the budget in 7 years, with considerably less debt than the reconciliation bill passed by the majority, primarily through spending cuts. In fact over 90 percent of the deficit reduction came from $731 billion in spending cuts. However, it contained a limited number of commonsense changes that would have resulted in increased revenues, hence unconstitutional unless two- thirds of the House supported it. Does that really make common sense? I believe amending the Constitution is serious business and deserves serious debate. I suspect it is precisely because Committee on the Judiciary chairman Henry Hyde has the same respect for and concern about amending the Constitution that his committee was never given its proper and vitally important chance to consider the resolution before us on the floor tonight. The Constitution serves to protect fundamental rights of the minority in circumstances where majority rule does not adequately protect those rights. I believe that the balanced budget amendment is an appropriate addition to the Constitution because it protects the rights of future generations who are not represented in the current political system. By contrast, individuals who are affected by tax increases are represented in the political system and are protected by our system of majority rule. Our children and grandchildren are not. It is too easy to borrow money. Debt going from $1 trillion to $5 trillion in the last 13 years is evidence that the theory behind the amendment proposed before us tonight has not worked and will not work. Tax limitation promises have a superficial appeal which completely ignores the realities of the deficit. It is time for us to start eating our vegetables and resisting the dessert, regardless of whether it is Republican tax cut dessert or Democratic extra spending dessert being peddled. This debate is not about the level of taxes that Charlie Stenholm, Joe Barton, Pete Geren, or any other Member of the 104th Congress thinks is appropriate under the current circumstances for the next year or even the next 7 years. This debate tonight is about whether those of us here tonight should place in the Constitution an inflexible rule that will apply for all future generations. I wonder if this amendment has been fully thought out. I think the debate today proves it has not. There are so many serious unanswered questions about this amendment. For example, the resolution before us amends the Constitution to require a two-thirds majority vote to increase internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. Nowhere either in the bill or in any part of the Constitution are there any clues as to what policies would be covered by the phrase ``internal revenue'' or what ``de minimis'' might mean. Later this week the House will vote on a bill to take the transportation trust funds off-budget. However, the airport ticket tax which is supposed to fund the aviation trust fund has expired. Under this amendment, a two-thirds vote would be required to extend this tax. On the one hand, a majority of this body may say that these trust funds deserve special protection, while on the other hand we are voting tonight to prevent Congress from funding the trust fund at all unless two-thirds of this body shall concur. This bill should be sent back to committee for the further and thoughtful review that any constitutional amendment, before it ever gets to the floor of the House, should have had. Vote ``no'' on this amendment. It is a very politically popular amendment but it is a poorly thought out resolution.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight has been a good debate. Members on both sides have made very good and relevant points. However, I believe it has now been clearly demonstrated that much more work remains before this amendment should be sent to the other body. If I have learned anything over the many years that we spent in bipartisan work on the passage of the balanced budget constitutional amendment, it is a tremendous respect for every significant single word that goes into the Constitution of the United States. The constitutional amendment bipartisanly worked on over the years underwent a great deal of scrutiny both in the public arena and in committee hearings. The amendment evolved and improved because of that scrutiny. We have seen an alarming abuse of the committee review process during this entire Congress, but never so blatantly as with this constitutional amendment. For people who revere the history of this Nation, the aborted democratic procedures of the past year and a half make a mockery of the title deliberative body. To bring a constitutional amendment to the floor of the House without having it undergo the scrutiny of the Committee on the Judiciary I think in itself is ample reason that this House tonight should refer this amendment back to the committee so that it may be what it should have done before tonight, and that is conduct hearings on this amendment, on these words, on this what has been spoken tonight, and a necessary study of the joint resolution, and then bring it forward again for consideration of this House if the majority so wills. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2854 Mr. Speaker, it is with some considerable reservation that I stand here tonight encouraging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the 1996 [FAIR] Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act. However, I suggest to you all that we must put philosophical differences aside and think clearly and with conscientious conviction about who, not what we are supporting. Today's vote is for American farmers and the communities with families who sustain them. If this were March 1995 and we were debating future farm policy, but had functional farm laws in place, I would be adamant in my opposition to this legislation because it removes the safety net from under these peoples' lives. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury today. At this stage in the game, with planting and credit decisions still in limbo, we must believe that any further delay only imperils the livelihoods of millions of people. Even with all it's potential shortcomings and pitfalls, I have to accept this legislation as the best we can provide at this time. I would not have authored it, but the majority's views prevailed. Although I believe many of the aspects of this bill will come back and haunt us, our debate, limited as it was, is over for now. We must move forward and provide some degree of predictability and assurance to our agricultural producers. If we force ourselves to stand back, remove emotion, and objectively view farm programs and their overall effects on society, it's apparent to me that the level of stability offered to markets by our support has allowed the American farmer to become the envy of the world. No farm programs that exist today are perfect; they never will be. From a long view though, they have been successful. It may be the time to embark on new social experiments but we cannot ignore or forget what has worked in the past. The current leadership believes in a text-book free market, but this completely ignores the role of other governments that don't practice free trade. The recent GATT accord has not changed this. The European Union, for example, over the past 5 years outspent the United States 6 to 1 in terms of export subsidies, $10.6 billion versus less than $2 billion by the United States, and will be able to maintain its historical advantage under the GATT Agreement. American farmers cannot unilaterally disarm in an international marketplace. I don't know of a single farmer who wouldn't rather receive his income from the marketplace, but the real world is subsidized agriculture. This is one of the areas where our Government must stand shoulder to shoulder with us. We must use all our tools to boost commodity export: first, programs to help U.S. exporters compete in terms of price; second, programs to help importers obtain credit needed to purchase U.S. commodities; and third, programs to provide U.S. farm products as food aid. All our efforts will be wasted however, if we neglect the infrastructure of rural America. We must continue to provide critical resources for rural communities as they work to address unmet needs at the local level. Water and sewer requirements alone cannot be met with the money that have been authorized. Research, education, extension, and seed money to develop value added programs are essential too, for rural economies to diversify and position themselves to compete in a rapidly changing global economy. Without public investment in stabilizing agriculture, you will witness further declines in rural America's security and strength. The provisions of the FAIR Act will result in dramatic adjustments in U.S. policy and continues cuts in spending. Overall, numerous challenges confront U.S. agriculture--challenges of first, responding to competition in the global marketplace; second, ensuring a profitable, sustainable food and agriculture sector; third, safeguarding natural resources and the environment; fourth, ensuring balanced nutrition and a high-quality food supply; and revitalizing rural America. The stakes are high, but the opportunities and rewards are unlimited. Whether the agriculture industry continues its move forward or falls behind is largely dependent upon the vision and imagination of its participants. More importantly, we cannot be afraid to re-examine any policy as it relates to the vitality and stability of the sector it is meant to serve. With that in mind, I urge you to vote ``yes'' and put our farmers back to work.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to keep health insurance reform moving through the legislative process, I rise with some reservation to support H.R. 3103, the Health Coverage Availability Act of 1996. My record clearly reflects my strong support of health insurance reform. In addition to efforts on rural health issues and system-wide reform, I have worked for many years to make health insurance both accessible and affordable for millions of underserved Americans, many of whom reside in the 17th District of Texas. In one very recent example, I heard from a constituent who has been employed since 1954, working the last 10 years with her sister in a bookkeeping and secretarial business. At one point, she had hospitalization insurance, but the price of the policy continually increased to the point that she finally had to drop it because she could no longer afford it. She now worries about the health and economic vulnerability of her situation. While this legislation does not specifically address all of her needs, I believe certain provisions such as portability of health insurance, limitation on pre-existing conditions, increased tax deductibility for the self-employed, and guaranteed availability of insurance for small employers, are definitely steps in the right direction. Because the Senate has taken the lead on a health insurance reform bill which the President has pledged to sign, I must express my concerns about the political ramifications of loading this bill down with some of the more controversial issues that have been included here today. I recall just a few years ago, during a similar health care debate, when my friends on the other side of the aisle were criticizing Democrats for ``overreaching'' on health care reform proposals. Now, I fear we are back to square one. Like many Members of this body, I would like to see additional health care reforms, including reforms to develop rural health networks and preserve rural health services. Facing political reality, however, I realize that this might not be the proper vehicle to achieve these goals. I am also concerned that rather than promoting the goals of greater health insurance access and affordability, some provisions in this bill may have the reverse impact in the long run because sufficient safeguards were not added to the provisions. For example, I have strongly supported small employer pooling arrangements with effective certification and solvency standards, as well as protections to ensure that the pool is large enough to manage risk. However, I am worried that the pooling section of this legislation fails to meet those concerns. I am especially concerned that the bill we are considering today includes provisions and changes which were made after the Committees of jurisdiction reported out their components of the bill. While I am not convinced that this House bill meets many of my concerns, I do believe that these issues can be worked out in conference. Therefore, in the spirit of keeping the process moving forward, I intend to vote yes on final passage. It is my hope that we not let another opportunity to achieve some type of bipartisan health care reform pass us by, simply because we again overreach the boundaries of consensus. That is why I am cautiously supporting H.R. 3103, with the hope that the conference committee will inject bipartisan commonsense into the process and develop a health insurance reform bill that will get a Presidential signature. After all, without both a congressional majority and a Presidential signature, my constituents in the 17th district, or Americans anywhere else, will receive no benefit from this political exercise. In the final analysis, I would hope that the ultimate goal for us all is weighed not in political, special interest terms, but in terms of caring for the health needs of our un- and under-insured populations.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the German philosopher Hegel once wrote: ``What experience and history teach is this: that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.'' Unfortunately, this has been the case with U.S. energy policy. Few people serving in this Congress do not remember the impact of the two oil crises in the 1970's. Millions of jobs were lost, and the economy experienced billions of dollars in lost production and income. The domestic energy industry, which has historically been a boom-or- bust industry, has never recovered from the drop in oil prices in the 1980's. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost, domestic exploration and production declined, with the result that we are even more dependent than ever on foreign sources of energy. As we mark the 5-year anniversary of the Persian Gulf war, U.S. oil imports now approach 50 percent of domestic oil consumption and this is expected to reach 60 to 75 percent by 2010. While we currently have ready access to oil from Venezuela and Mexico, there are no certainties about what happens globally on down the line when it comes to Russian politics, the Iraqi oil embargo, and the future stability of the Middle East. Oil imports affect national security, American jobs, the balance of trade, interest rates, the stability of the dollar, and the economy. Unless we develop a realistic and bipartisan energy policy, we will remain vulnerable to future supply disruptions, economic problems, and threats to our national security.